They were unfeasible in 1943. Most US bomber losses occurred over the target in 1943 and it required escort fighters to make it feasible. This was also before the widespread introduction of larger caliber cannons as well.
3 Likes
Over the target? Where all the flak is? Hmmmmm, Im sensing a pattern forming here, if fighters were blowing bombers apart and the germans had radar, why werent they blown apart BEFORE getting to the target, how strange…
The Luftwaffe would wait for the escort fighters to reach the limits of their range and turn around before attacking the bomber formations. This unescorted leg was considered “over the target” by AAC documents.
2 Likes
Just like you’re incapable of sustaining a winrate over 35 percent? I cropped out my 52% thinking it was bad lol, You probably shouldnt be telling me what to do when you, the “qing guy”, a bomber capable of bombing bases and farming tickets for your team, carrying them to victory, fails to do just that
Yes, and yet despite them having a complete feeding frenzy over these defenseless bombers, the 8th’s the loss rate was of b17s 3.7% in 1943… 3.7 percent didnt make it home
Win rate in Sim doesnt mean anything since most of matches are bugged due to broken objectives
1 Like
Oh no my win rate!
Lmao.
2 Likes
Please tell me how bombing bases and ground units is bugged. You kill them, tickets on enemy side? they go down. push it down enough and you win, thats what ive been doing, my WR was like 30 something and then I decided to actually play the game and managed to claw it back within like 3 months
One team spawning and losing attackers and bombers while other team doesnt spawn them at all. You lose tickets like crazy from those objectives.
2 Likes
in the end sim is gonna end up being a bomber vs bomber gunship gameplay and any one who plays fighters will be punished
and dont even get me started how horrible its gonna be when events start
2 Likes
uhuh, well that sounds like it sucks, anyway ive made my points, disproven false claims of b17s tanking “thousands” of rounds, b17s tanking missiles, even b17s surviving more than one pass from a ta152h when the ta actually aims, the bomber DMs feel good to me besides wonky collisions, Im pretty sure all the complaints is just culture shock that they arent exploding immediately when frankly bombers back in the day were even tankier, and a light garnish of just straight cope. Im actually going to bed now, ive gotta be up for work in 6, this conversations been in a downward spiral going over the same points over and over until people got bored and started statshaming because theres simply no more points to cover. The bombers feel like bombers, whats the problem
The 8th Air Force spent most of 1943 bombing submarine pens in France with the benefit of being within the range of their fighter escorts.
They experienced nearly catastrophic losses as soon as they began to push futher than fighter escorts were able to accompany the bombers. Their loss rate peaked at around 9% in August of 1943 which was unsustainable.
The relative effectiveness of German fighters also effectively doubled by March 1944 in large part due to increased armament. Unescorted bomber attacks in early 1944 would have been suicide for the 8th Air Force.
3 Likes
9 percent from the WORST ISOLATED PERIOD of the feeding frenzy, and that figure is probably counting planes that made it back and were written off, where they spent way longer than a war thunder match against many, many more fighters having their way. 'night
since you feel the current dms are fine and are able to withstand more damage, what do you think of increasing the spawn cost/repair costs of bombers or increasing the rp/sl/mission points rewards for shooting down bombers?
2 Likes
The percentage of bombers that were even hit by enemy aircraft was less than 20% in 1943; so losing 9% is pretty catastrophic. And AAC records indicate that the majority of their losses in this time period was due to enemy fighters.
2 Likes
Got out of bed for this. see THIS? THIS MAKES SENSE. This is a perfectly reasonable and justified adjustment given the situation. I agree with THIS. Bombers can have higher SP and repair costs, because now they are harder to kill and are less of a waste of said SP and SL. And enemies should be rewarded more because, yes, it takes more effort, more SKILL, to take them down. Thank you for bringing this up, it slipped my mind. Back to sleep
from what i have seen, it seems bugged with weird aspect, like how missiles fail at dealing sufficient damage, or how BVVD was failing with 37mm HE to do anything to those engines.
It is a good direction. Machineguns, 20mm shells should have to work for the kill, while 30+, especially 40+ mm guns should be the most effective at destroying bombers…as these were built into heavy fighters for that sole purpose.
2 Likes
Also this is wrong as well.
The loss rate including planes that were written off was effectively double.
4 Likes
I feel like its a good step, but WAY OVERDONE.
Be practically immune to LMG rounds, shure. Let Cal. .50 do damage, ok, 20mm being right around being usable, shure, but then requiring LOTS of 30 or even 37mm hits, and even eating 50mm Minen Granaten, which were designed to take out bombers in a single hit (well tests showed ~75% chance iirc, which is why they went to 55mm and even wanted to go to 57mm, since they also had big stock of captured 6 pdr ammo, which they wanted to simply copy and expand upon.) And even tanking 75mm HE rounds is absurd.
5 Likes
I know that my aim ain’t that great but even then it’s quite hilarious to see.
2 Likes